This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Which is Islam's Main Goal: To Captivate, Convert or Kill Us?

Re: Which is Islam's Main Goal: To Captivate, Convert or Kill Us?

So then you CANT prove that the US has a plan to exterminate Muslims like the Nazi's tried with the Jewish?

Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra

Could you have proven before the Jews were exterminated that they were? No, but many things would suspect such a thing happening in the short term future..

With today technologies? Yes I could.
Right now anybody who wishes to look can find evidence that Muslims are exterminating other Muslims but I guess in your book that doesn't count since its not the USA doing the killing.

Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra

Thats the American agenda anyways it seems like, judging from all the American extremists on this forum.

Re: Which is Islam's Main Goal: To Captivate, Convert or Kill Us?

Originally Posted by cherokee

Can I judge your country by your posts?

As far as I know I am the only Norwegian on this forum.. But if you saw that all Norwegians(say if there was 50 on this forum) had largely the same views on the forum about something specific, yes then you should start considering the possibility of judging my country based on "our opinions". That its a very good possibility that Norwegians in general watch that issue in a certain way.

I am not judging everyone in the US based on the extremists on this forum, but when it accounts for the whole Muslim things, I believe there is a majority of Americans on this forum that basically have the same extremists stand. And I do consider this forum somewhat of a representation of "regular" Americans. Politically involved in general, or not.

I am still not saying its a majority of Americans in general that takes these views, but many indications and factors tells me that there is a large minority of Americans in general with the same stands, that at least is for certain.

Re: Which is Islam's Main Goal: To Captivate, Convert or Kill Us?

Originally Posted by Maximus Zeebra

As far as I know I am the only Norwegian on this forum.. But if you saw that all Norwegians(say if there was 50 on this forum) had largely the same views on the forum about something specific, yes then you should start considering the possibility of judging my country based on "our opinions". That its a very good possibility that Norwegians in general watch that issue in a certain way.

I am not judging everyone in the US based on the extremists on this forum, but when it accounts for the whole Muslim things, I believe there is a majority of Americans on this forum that basically have the same extremists stand. And I do consider this forum somewhat of a representation of "regular" Americans. Politically involved in general, or not.

I am still not saying its a majority of Americans in general that takes these views, but many indications and factors tells me that there is a large minority of Americans in general with the same stands, that at least is for certain.

You can always tell a Norwegian......you just can't tell him much.

Passengers at the Minneapolis airport were denied rides in cabs driven by muslims because they had liquor. One guy was denied a ride because he had a guide dog for the blind. That is simply wrong.

Re: Which is Islam's Main Goal: To Captivate, Convert or Kill Us?

Originally Posted by Wessexman

None of this was cause enough to invade. Such views on war are a menace to domestic liberty and external security. Imagine if Russia and China started thinking they could invade places on such flimsy excuses.

Say's a citizen of a country that wasn't toyed with for twelve years. You people are in a pathetic state of denial these days. You speak of domestic liberty. Who's liberty? Yours or Iraqis? You speak of external security. The thorn in the side of this region's stability was Hussein. Ater years and years of breaking UN mandates and rules (which was the deal for his presevation post Gulf War).....you people still complain about "cause."

1) January 13, 1993: More than 100 American, British, and French fighters bombed Iraqi air-defense targets. Five days later, forty-five TLAMs launched ay sea destroyed a factory that had ben a key part of Iraqi's nuclear program. These attacks were followed with further jet-fighter air strikes the next day.

2) In the fall of 1994, Hussein demanded that the UN lift sanctions, and to force the issue he deployed 80,000 troops near the Kuwaiti border. Clinton sent 50,000 American troops, including an aircraft carrier battle group and hundreds of aircrafts. (Operation Vigilant Warrior). After Hussein backed down, 5,000 American troops remained in Kuwait.

3) One year later, Hussein pulled a similar stunt. American troops once again reinforced Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. As a result of these efforts, the US maintained a sizable force in the Persian Gulf.

4) August 1996: Two months after the Khobar Towers bombing, Hussein launched another offensive inside Iraq that forced his fourth confrontation with Clinton in less than four years. He attacked the Kurds in the north. They were under the protection of the no-fly zone, imposed in 1991 by Operation Provide Comfort; Hussein's action also violated the U.N. Security Council Resolution prohibiting him form repressing his people. Clinton ordered a cruise missile strike, sending forty-four TLAMs against air defense targets in southern Iraq.

5) Autumn 1997: Hussein began placing restrictions again on UN inspectors and demanded that all American be kicked off the teams. Clinton ordered another buildup of U.S. military forces in the Gulf. Hussein backed off.

6) 1998: Hussein once again prevented the UN inspectors from working.

7) Mid year 1998: Congress passes and Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, codifying the aim of regime change into U.S. law and authorizing nearly $100 million in Pentagon funds to support the Iraqi opposition. One month later, Hussein started playing games with UN inspectors again and Operation Desert Fox commenced.

8) As late as 2002, Hussein flies military jets over Jordan and Saudi Arabia's airspace to further taunt American action.

Cause or no cause...it happened. But Europe would have preferred that America continue to deal with this thorn until the end of time. Did Europe have to spend billions dealing with this creep for twelve years? Did Europe's militaries jump back and forth to play the Hussein game? Hell no. But Europe has the nerve to complain about America's actions to topple what was largely not their problem.

Despite the bunglings of Rumsfeld, Iraq today is what many of us have been defending for years. If the critic had it his way, America's forces would have abandoned Iraqis years ago and Al-Queda would have Iraq instead of the wastelands of Afghanistan. But it seems even the French government is striving to take advantage of the free Iraq and vast potential on the horizen these days. Toppling Hussein was the best thing for this region and for the world...at least for those who were actively dealing with the bastard since we paved the path back to his throne post Gulf War.

But what's the point on "imagining" about Russia or China? Being the model of oppression for their own people, you think some dictator in the world has a reason to be cautious about them? You think either one would be caught trying to uphold unprecedented UN interference upon a soveriegn nation for twelve years (Ironic how the critics only complained about Hussein's soveriegnty in 2003.)? And with America's history and record for leaving every single nation it ever entered to the local people, you actually have the nerve to place America upon the same shelf as China and Russia?

This is why you critics have such a hard time with this. You pretend to protest over a lack of "cause," but the truth is that you merely argued for the status quo....at America's expense. Always, at America's expense.

Re: Which is Islam's Main Goal: To Captivate, Convert or Kill Us?

Say's a citizen of a country that wasn't toyed with for twelve years. You people are in a pathetic state of denial these days. You speak of domestic liberty. Who's liberty? Yours or Iraqis?

Mine of course. It is not for us to risk our domestic and external security for those of another nation unless there is likely to be something like a genocide going on. Such a practice will likely backfire as such liberal, interventionist humanitarianism usually does. Creating more problems, as it did in Iraq and destabilising things further by encouraging increased flouting of national sovereignty. We are lucky that Russia and China haven't quite taken it up yet.

When will you liberals learn that interventionist, humanitarianism usually backfires.

You speak of external security. The thorn in the side of this region's stability was Hussein. Ater years and years of breaking UN mandates and rules (which was the deal for his presevation post Gulf War).....you people still complain about "cause."

Saddam was not a threat to Britain or my region, he was barely doing much to upset his own region. External security in the region seems little better now than it did before the war but that is not particularly my worry unless it threatens my own region. I'm no liberal univsersalist, I don't wish to try and sort out the world's problems, that usually causes more trouble than it cures.

"It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke